Microsoft Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2021

2020002285 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/894,448 05/15/2013 Varun Srinivasan 338820.01 1011
69316 7590 06/24/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
GOLDEN, STEVE PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
chriochs@microsoft.com
jkarr@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte VARUN SRINIVASAN, GREGORY AKSELROD,
DAVID JOHN RASMUSSEN and EUN JU NAM
_______________

Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448
Technology Center 2100
_______________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19 through 22. Claims 2,
3, 5, 6, 8, 11 through 13, 16 through 18, and 23 through 30 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC,
is the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method in which a uniform resource
locator (URL) link inserted into a note or document can be enhanced
through a capture service for curation and collaboration applications.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method of enhancing a link in curation and
collaboration applications, comprising:
determining, from content inserted into a note of an
application, a string of characters indicating a uniform resource
locator (URL);
upon determining the string of characters indicating the
URL from the content inserted into the note, automatically
calling a first web service to obtain a representation of content
referenced by the URL by sending a request from the
application to the first web service, wherein the request at least
comprises the URL; and
receiving the representation of the content referenced by
the URL from the first web service in a format customized for
the application, a computing device on which the application is
implemented, or both;
wherein the format customized for the application, the
computing device on which the application is implemented, or
both includes at least one of:
removing advertisements from the representation
of the content;
separating readable text from the representation of
the content to generate an image from the readable text;
providing hyperlink recognition so that internal
links shown in the representation of the content can be
made live and selectable; and
removing repetitive background content from the
representation of the content.

Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chang (US 8,255,819) and Chandra (US
2008/0005664). Final Act. 2–6.
The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chang, Chandra and Brown (US 2012/0111936). Final
Act. 7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 9, 10, 15, 20 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, Chandra, and Kremer
(US 2002/0073058). Final Act. 7–10.
The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chang, Chandra, and Matas (US 2007/0106952). Final
Act. 14–15.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19 through 22.

Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 10, and 21
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues that the

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 3,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed January 29, 2020 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed March 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed November 29, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448

4
combination of Chang and Chandra does not teach the steps of determining
from content inserted in to a note, a string of characters indicating a uniform
resource locator (URL), and upon determining the string of characters
indicating the URL, automatically calling a first web service to obtain a
representation of the content as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–14.
Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 1 requires a string of the characters
representing a URL, that is within the content inserted, is recognized and
used to obtain a representation of the content corresponding to the URL.
Appeal Br. 10–12. Additionally, Appellant argues that the claim recites
upon determining the character string contains a URL automatically loading
the content, and that Chang contains “no teaching or suggestion of an
automated process whereby upon determining that there is URL as part of
the content of a note, the content referenced by the URL is requested and a
customized representation is received.” Appeal Br. 13. Further, Appellant
argues that:
Chang requires a user to navigate back to the original URL
found within the metadata. Therefore, Chang does not describe
automatically calling a first web service to obtain a
representation of content referenced by the URL “upon
determining the string of characters indicating the URL from
the content inserted into the note.”
Reply Br. 4 (citing claim 1 and Ans. 5).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, noting that claim 1
does not recite a limitation that precludes the string of characters
representing the URL from being in metadata and finds that Chang discloses
content stored in notebooks which includes a URL. Ans. 3 (citing Chang
col. 6, ll. 8–24). The Examiner states “[w]ithin the broadest interpretation of
the claim limitation it is determined that a ‘string of characters’ representing
Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448

5
a URL can be read from metadata that has been inserted into a note (i.e., the
metadata discussed by Change includes the URL).” Ans. 4. Further,
regarding the claim 1 limitation of “automatically calling a first web service
to obtain a representation of content referenced by the URL” the Examiner
states:
the instant application’s specification, pars. 26-28, it does state
that “a screenshot of the content referenced by the URL can
automatically be displayed in the note when the URL is
determined.” However, when the specification references the
process of “calling a web service” (where it is noted that the
claim states “automatically calling a first web service”), the
specification states that process “refers to an action (or actions)
that a client application performs to use the web service.” (par.
28). Therefore, the claimed “automatically calling a first web
service,” at best, should merely be interpreted as all computer
processes are in a sense automated processes (i.e., not all
processes within a computer occur manually).
Ans. 7.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Initially, we concur with the Examiner that the
insertion of content into a note of an application limitation of claim 1 is
taught by Chang, we do not see a difference from Appellant’s method of
clipping a URL (discussed in paragraph 18 of the Specification “a user
provides a link or takes note of a URL for a webpage … information may be
copied or ‘clipped’ into a note”) and that discussed by Chang in col. 15, ll.
41–55 (“content can be copied into the notebook … [f]or example, a user
may only wish to copy the Universal Resource Locator”). However, having
a URL in the content of the note alone does not meet the claim limitation,
which recites a method step of determining a string of characters indicates a
URL. The Examiner has not shown that Chang teaches making such a
Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448

6
determination. Further, method claim 1 recites that based upon the
determination, a step of automatically calling the web service to obtain the
representation of the content referenced by the URL is performed. Thus,
regardless of whether “all computer processes are in a sense automated
processes” as stated by the Examiner, the claim predicates the automatic step
on the determination step. As the Examiner has not shown that the
determining step is taught or obvious, the Examiner has also not
demonstrated that the step of automatically loading the content, based upon
the determination that the string of characters is a URL, is taught or obvious
over the teachings. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 or the rejections of dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 10, and
21 which similarly rely upon the teachings of Chang to teach the disputed
limitations of claim 1.

Independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15, 19, 20 and 22
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellant argues that the
combination of Chang and Chandra do not teach “rendering, using a virtual
machine generated by the server, content accessed from a resource at the
URL” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant argues that the
portion of Chang cited by the Examiner provides that the server may
produce a blend that is identical to that produced by a browser but “includes
no mention of a rendering process or virtual machines; and servers do not
normally have a display in which to render content.” Appeal Br. 16 (citing
the Advisory Action mailed Aug. 8, 2019).
The Examiner cites to Chang as teaching the disputed limitation and
states:
Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448

7
Chang discloses: (Column 4, lines 26-29, that the server
can store notebook information instead of it being stored on
each client computer, and Column 25, lines 3- 22 further
discloses that various other modifications may be made, such as
the server (not the client) may implement the same effect on a
selected image using an identical function as the browser
(which would be on a client device). This teaching follows the
same definition of virtual machines as described in the instant
application’ specification (par. 62), where the server can
implement a “virtualization” process (act as a client’s browser),
while not being restricted to only the resources available to a
single machine (client). Chang specifically discloses: (Column
25, lines 16-19, “the server may implement the effect with a
different algorithm or process, one that is not limited by the
constraints that may be in place for the browser”). Even though
Chang doesn’t specifically state the term “virtual machine” a
person skilled in the art would understand that the process of a
virtual machine is fully capable within the system taught by
Chang.
Ans. 8
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 14. Claim 14 recites “rendering, using a
virtual machine generated by the server, content accessed from a resource at
the URL.” Thus, the claim recites that the virtual machine renders content
from a URL. Appellant’s Specification identifies a virtual machine is a
“virtualization” of a physical computer system. Spec. ¶62. We have
reviewed the cited teachings of Chang which state:
the server described above may implement the same effect on a
selected image using an identical function as the browser. That
is, the server may produce a blend that is identical to the blend
produced by the browser.

Chang col. 25, ll. 11–16. We do not find that this discussion teaches or has
the Examiner sufficiently shown that it demonstrates that the server is either
Appeal 2020-002285
Application 13/894,448

8
a virtualization of a computer system or that the server performs a rendering
of retrieved content. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 14 or the rejections of dependent claims 15,
19, 20, and 22 which similarly rely upon the teachings of Chang to teach the
disputed limitations of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15,
and 19 through 22.

Claims
Rejected
35 U. S. C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 14 103 Chang, Chandra 1, 14
4 103 Chang, Chandra,
Brown
4
7, 9, 10,
15, 20–22
103 Chang, Chandra,
Kremer
7, 9, 10, 15,
20–22
19 103 Chang, Chandra,
Matas
19
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 7, 9, 10,
14, 15, 19 –
22

REVERSED